Constitution says preemptive pardons are invalid

[Marener]

If the state thinks they are innocent they do not get a pardon; they get a reversal of conviction.

Reversal of convictions occur through the courts.
Pardons occur through the executive.

 

[StatesRightsForever]

Pardons are to correct an injustice.

No that is not what pardons are for. Pardon means pardon. "We forgive you but you were still guilty." If you were unjustly convicted you get a reversal of conviction. At least that's how it's supposed to be, but we have gotten away from that. Nowadays people get a pardon and say, "See. I was innocent all along."

 

[M14 Shooter]

The whole idea of a preemptive pardon is nonsense. Like talking about a non-deadly murder.

Funny - it thought you were going to provide text from the constitution which says pre-emptive pardons are invalid, as advertised.

 

[StatesRightsForever]

Reversal of convictions occur through the courts.
Pardons occur through the executive.

That is not quite correct but it doesn't matter anyway. A reversal of conviction means you were prosecuted unfairly and may well be innocent. A pardon means you were guilty but the state forgives you.

 

[Nostra]

Never charged because it was a blanket preemptive pardon.

Nope. You have no clue what blanket means, or preemptive.

But then, you are a moron.

 

[Nostra]

Pardons are for offenses. The constitution does not say crimes, charges or convictions.

Do you still think someone had to be convicted before getting a pardon?

Once again Moroner steps on a rake and exposes his colossal ignorance.

)
the term “offense” means any criminal offense, other than an offense triable by court-martial, military commission, provost court, or other military tribunal, which is in violation of an Act of Congress and is triable in any court established by Act of Congress;

18 U.S. Code § 3156 - Definitions

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Nostra]

The power of pardon conferred by the Constitution upon the President is unlimited except in cases of impeachment. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment. The power is not subject to legislative control.

Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866)

Ex parte Garland

supreme.justia.com

If "offense" doesn't mean crimes why would there be "legal proceedings" and "convictions and judgements".

What a clown.

 

[Marener]

Once again Moroner steps on a rake and exposes his colossal ignorance.

Read the constitution and get back to me.

It says offenses.

 

[StatesRightsForever]

Funny - it thought you were going to provide text from the constitution which says pre-emptive pardons are invalid, as advertised.

I did do that. It's in the opening post where i quote the constitution saying pardons may be given for "offenses against the united states." Without a conviction, how do you prove an offense?

 

[Nostra]

When they could be convicted of something.

So you agree they all committed crimes.

Baby steps.

 

[Nostra]

Read the constitution and get back to me.

It says offenses.

Yeah, and I posted the legal definition of "offenses" that means crimes. But you edited that out of my post thinking you wouldn't look like an idiot.

But you do look like an idiot.

 

[Marener]

So you agree they all committed crimes.

Where did I say that?

 

[Marener]

Yeah, and I posted the legal definition of "offenses" that means crimes.

Does it mean convictions?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Does it mean convictions?

well, post the pardon again maybe reading what it says will convince them that it is constitutional and legal.

 

[Nostra]

Does it mean convictions?

I provided you the definition. Not my problem you are too stupid to read it.

 

[Marener]

I provided you the definition. Not my problem you are too stupid to read it.

I guess you didn't realize your definition proves your wrong.

 

[StatesRightsForever]

Yeah, and I posted the legal definition of "offenses" that means crimes. But you edited that out of my post thinking you wouldn't look like an idiot.

But you do look like an idiot.

WHAT DID YOU JUST CALL ME?